Appeal Number: 2006-1996
Application Number: 10/459,679
the docking station 200 of Randolph as a drawer. We note that the examiner has
relied upon the dictionary definition of a “drawer”, but in our view the reasonable
and customary meaning of the term “drawer” does not include the pivoting and
locking structure shown by Randolph. In other words, a drawer translates
substantially horizontally, while the docking station of Randolph merely pivots
around pivot 202.
We will, however, sustain the rejections under § 102 and § 103 based on the
evidence of D’Souza and D’Souza in view of Lin. We agree with the examiner
that the claimed subject matter is extremely broad and all that is required is a
drawer that is large enough to support a laptop computer and auxiliary computer
keyboard. The claims say nothing about the arrangement or configuration of these
items in the drawer, and we agree with the examiner that they could be stacked, for
that matter. The claims do not specify that these supported articles be in any kind
of use position.
Furthermore, with respect to the obviousness rejections, we agree with
examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the computer
furniture art to modify the keyboard slide drawer of Lin or the drawer of D’Souza
to support both the laptop computer and the auxiliary computer keyboard if such
was desired. We note the teaching that typing on a laptop keyboard is sometimes
uncomfortable and an auxiliary keyboard is often desired (D’Souza, col. 1, ll. 20-
61). Pull out drawers are old and well known, and the idea that one might make a
drawer larger to contain more articles is well known in the furniture arts. For this
reason the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-8 as anticipated by D’Souza and the
rejection of claims 4 and 5 as unpatentable over D’Souza in view of Lin are
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013